MP High Court Slams Magistrate’s Passive Role In Attempt To Murder Case | Orders Sessions Court To Take Cognizance Against Accused Despite Alibi Defence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that the Sessions Court committed a material illegality in rejecting the application under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to take cognizance against the two accused under Sections 307 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code, along with any other offence that may be made out based on the facts and circumstances. The judgment mandates the trial court to proceed accordingly in the pending trial.
The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge the order passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in S.T. No. 315 of 2023. This order had dismissed the applicant’s plea under Section 193 CrPC for taking cognizance against two individuals, identified as Badshah Dandotiya and Rakesh Dandotiya.
The genesis of the matter lay in an FIR lodged by Ramvilas Gurjar, wherein he alleged that on June 1, 2021, around 4:00 a.m., while traveling with the applicant Parmal Singh Gurjar and another person named Dharmendra Singh Kansana, they were intercepted near the farmhouse of Hakim Baghel. At the location, four individuals, namely Badshah, Rakesh, Rahul, and Lalla alias Janavar, allegedly assaulted them with lathis and hurled verbal abuse invoking familial slurs.
According to the FIR, Badshah fired a shot at the applicant Parmal, while Rakesh allegedly fired at Dharmendra. Both sustained gunshot wounds and were transported to the District Hospital, Morena, and later referred to Apollo Hospital in Gwalior.
Subsequently, the police filed a charge sheet only against Rahul Dandotiya and Lalla alias Janavar Dandotiya. The charge sheet excluded Badshah and Rakesh, citing their alibi, medical documents linked to COVID-19, and supporting CCTV footage. The police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed against them.
The applicant first attempted to initiate proceedings against Badshah and Rakesh by filing an application under Section 190 CrPC before the committal court. The court dismissed this application citing lack of jurisdiction, as the offence under Section 307 IPC was triable by a Sessions Court.
Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application under Section 193 CrPC before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed on June 24, 2024. The applicant then approached the High Court asserting that the decision not to take cognizance was based on flawed reasoning and relied on inconclusive or manipulated evidence presented by the police.
He argued that the FIR named both respondents and provided detailed accusations, including the specific role each allegedly played in the firing incident. He contended that the rejection of the application under Section 193 CrPC was premature and undermined the trial court's jurisdiction to evaluate the case on its merits.
The applicant further challenged the credibility of the medical documents and CCTV footage relied upon to support the accused’s alibi. He stated that DVR timestamps can be manually altered, and the scene can be fabricated, rendering the footage non-conclusive.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contested the petition on the ground that the committal court had already adjudicated upon the application under Section 190 CrPC, and that only Section 319 CrPC could be invoked thereafter. They maintained that the magistrate’s decision constituted an “active role” in the matter, thereby extinguishing the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia recorded, “The material which was relied upon by the Police to hold that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not present on the spot is not sufficient to draw such an inference.” The Court rejected the reliability of the CCTV footage and the medical prescription, noting, “The CCTV footage of a system installed in a house can be interpolated very easily. The date and time in the DVR is fed manually.”
On the subject of alibi, the Court quoted from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, stating, “An alibi…is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper.”
The Court also referenced Mukesh Singh Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, observing, “The evidence which has been collected by the police is not sufficient and in fact, the police has filed closure report on surmises and conjectures without there being any foundation.”
Addressing the issue of jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC, the Court noted, “It is held that the Committal Court did not play an ‘active role’ but it played a ‘passive role’ merely by committing the case to the Court of Session.” Citing Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court observed that when a Magistrate actively considers a Section 190 application, the Sessions Court must defer to that. However, in the present case, “the Magistrate has not considered the merits of the case and simply held that the offence is triable by the Court of Session.”
Thus, it held that the Sessions Court retained jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 193 CrPC.
The High Court set aside the order dated June 24, 2024, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in S.T. No. 315 of 2023. The Court held, “The Sessions Court committed a material illegality by not taking cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3.”
It directed that, “The application filed by the applicant under Section 193 of CrPC is allowed.”
Further, the Court issued the following directive: “The trial court / Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena is directed to take cognizance against respondent Nos 2 and 3 for offences under Sections 307 and 294 of IPC as well as any other offence which may be made out under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
With this, the application was allowed in full.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Aditya Singh Ghuraiya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor; Shri V.D. Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Parimal Singh Gurjar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:10853
Case Number: M.Cr.C. No. 31252 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
[Read/Download order]
